Muhammed Butt receives almost £3,000's worth of gifts and hospitality in five months

The latest declaration of gifts and hospitality by Brent councillors always makes interesting reading. As one would expect, Brent council leader Muhammed Butt tops the list. The value of his gifts and hospitality are for the period July 2018 to December 2018 but nothing is declared for November. The value of all his declarations so far in the period is £2,964.

Click bottom right corner to enlarge to PDF to full size:

'Slumlord' millionaire must pay £1.5m or spend 9 years in prison for flouting planning laws and exploiting desperate tenants

Press release from Brent and Harrow Councils

A notorious rogue landlord must pay £1,500,000 or spend nine years behind bars after justice caught up with him at Harrow Crown Court last Friday (30 November). The court found that Vispasp Sarkari had flouted planning rules for more than five years - converting properties across Brent and Harrow into substandard flats without planning permission.

Sarkari, 56, of Hawthorne Avenue, Harrow, had been cramming tenants into cramped and dangerous accommodation - charging them extortionate amounts in rent. His criminal enterprise included one property in Brent illegally converted into eight substandard box-room bedsits and four more similarly converted in Harrow.

He defied all planning enforcement warnings by both councils to stop the use of his properties and carried on with his criminal venture raking in thousands of pounds from people desperate to have a roof over their head.  

Cllr Tom Miller, Brent Council's Cabinet Member for Community Safety, said:

"Slum landlords won't be tolerated - plain and simple. If you ignore planning laws or leave tenants to languish in poor conditions, then we will find you, we will take action in court, and we will win. Anyone we find flouting planning or exploiting renters will feel a deep hole in their pockets after we've taken them to task."

Sarkari was also separately fined £12,000 and ordered to pay both councils' costs in full. It's believed that he may have several further properties across the two boroughs - making him responsible for a significant proportion of illegal flat conversions and HMOs blighting North West London. 

Cllr Keith Ferry, Harrow Council's cabinet member for planning, said:

"Justice means taking the ill-gotten gains off this slumlord millionaire. This is a man who thought he couldn't be stopped. He was wrong, and thanks to our joint work with Brent Council, Sarkari's criminal venture is finished.

"But he's not the only rackrent landlord out there, wrecking lives and ruining our boroughs by running illegal flats and HMOs. My message to the others is this: we'll never stop, we'll never give up, and when we catch you, we'll punish you too."

Extensive inquiries by both councils established the extent of Mr Sarkari's criminal activity. Brent also secured a restraint order against Mr Sarkari which means that he cannot dispose of his assets before the order is paid in full. If he doesn't pay up, then the Council can force the sale of his properties.


In sentencing Mr Sarkari, Judge Wood described the breaches as "a flagrant abuse of the Town and Country Planning legislation". She went on to thank everybody involved for their hard work in putting the case forward.


Harrow and Brent were represented by Counsel Mr Edmund Robb of Prospect Law. He said:

"The Confiscation Order of almost £1.5 m which has been made in this case represents major recognition by the Crown Court of the personal misery and amenity damage which is caused by blatant and longstanding failures by developers to comply with planning enforcement notices issued by local authorities in London."

The Village School to stay with the LA for now and the NEU wants that to be permanent

I understand that the Village School, a special school in Brent that was to join a Multi-Academy Trust, will remain within the Brent  local authority into January 2019.

The academy and MAT conversion process has been “deferred” pending an ESFA investigation into financial “irregularities”. 

The investigation was triggered by whistleblowing from NEU members regarding allegations that  off-payroll consultants  were interfering with governance and Human Resources matters at the Woodfield Trust whilst receiving up to £240,000 for “services as defined by the school”. They claim the financial due diligence process carried out by governors was led by one of these consultants.

Furthermore they allege that since the MAT process was started, consultants have continued to be paid with funds intended for the education of SEND children in the borough. Restructure of the senior leadership teams has increased the funds at the top levels while vacancies remain unfilled and agency staffing increases in the classrooms.

NEU members at the school are seeking a further ballot for strike action, following their 13 days last year, to try to keep their school in the local authority.

--> -->

Brent Council Planning Committee to decide on a 23 storey tower near Empire and Danes Court, Wembley

The development and others planned (grey shading) from North End Road

Before

After

Cumalative massing

Brent Planning Committee on December 12th will consider an application to build a block of varying heights, maximum 23 storeys, on a site in Watkin Road currently occupied by single storey car repair buildings. It is just outside the Quintain Masterplan site but illustrates the way tower blocks are spreading across the area.

At 23 storeys it is lower than the 29 storey Apex House student accommodation tower which will be its near neighbour. There is a 34 story block planned at Quintain Plot NE06.

The new building continues the enroachment on


As has become custome and practice the report by Brent planners glosses over aspects where the application fails to meet or comes close to not meeting local and London guidance:

1. Provision of new homes and affordable workspace: Your officers give great weight to the viable delivery of private and affordable housing and new affordable commercial floor space, in line with the adopted Development Plan.
   
2. The impact of a building of this height and design in this location: The proposal replaces a poor quality commercial plot with a large modern high density development in keeping with the surrounding and approved built form. The development utilises good architecture with quality detailing and materials in order to maximise the site’s potential whilst respecting surrounding development. The development will not obstruct views of the Wembley Stadium arch from any protected viewpoints. A “tall building” is proposed within an area designated as “Inappropriate for tall buildings”. However, the height, layout, design and massing has been carefully considered and has been evaluated by the Design Council Design Review Panel, the GLA and by Brent Officers who all have concluded that the proposed building is appropriate for this context.
   
3. Quality of the resulting residential accommodation: The residential accommodation proposed is of sufficiently high quality. The mix of units is in accordance with the standards within the London Plan and reasonably well aligned with the Wembley Area Action Plan mix, and the flats would generally have good outlook and light. The amenity space is below our standard, but is still substantial and is high for a tall building.

4. Affordable housing: The maximum reasonable amount has been provided
   on a near policy compliant tenure split. This includes 35% affordable housing provision with a tenure split of 60:40 between affordable rented and intermediate flats when measured in terms of habitable rooms. 48% of the affordable rented accommodation are 3 bedroom flats when measured in terms of habitable rooms. The viability has been tested and it has been demonstrated that this is the maximum reasonable amount that can be provided on site. The requirements of affordable housing obligations are considered to have been met and a late stage viability review will be secured by S106.
   
5. Neighbouring amenity: There would be a loss of light to some windows of surrounding buildings, which is a function of a development on this scale. Many of the windows affected would serve student accommodation and/or do not yet exist as an established residential standard. The impact is considered to be acceptable given the urban context of the site. The overall impact of the development is considered acceptable, particularly in view of the wider regenerative benefits.
   
6. Highways and transportation: The alterations to the public highway as required in the S106 would be acceptable, considering the needs of pedestrians, cyclists and motorists. The highway works will include (i) providing a new loading bay on North End Road and (ii) extending a 20mph zone alongside the building. To encourage sustainable travel patterns, the scheme will be 'car-free' with the exception of blue badge parking spaces. A financial contribution of £110,000 towards extending CPZ's into the area is proposed with the removal of rights for residents within the development to apply for parking permits. A for bus service enhancements in the area, as required by TfL, will also be secured.
   
7. Trees, landscaping and public realm: Some low quality trees are proposed to be removed but they are not considered worthy of retention. The proposal is likely to substantially improve on the existing situation with a new public realm and associated tree planting proposed alongside a wider landscaping strategy. This will be assured through conditions.
   
8. Environmental impact, sustainability and energy: The measures outlined by the applicant achieve the required improvement on carbon savings within London Plan policy. Conditions will require further consideration of carbon savings prior to implementation.
   
9. Flooding and Drainage: Part of the site sits within a flood zone. A flood mitigation strategy and drainage strategy will be secured by condition to mitigate the risks associated with this. The development will also substantially improve the drainage capacity of the site through attenuation measures.
   

I would be interested to hear what the residents of Empire and Danes Court think of the proposal.

Sponsor my December beard to raise money for bowel cancer research

I'm going to look even scruffier than usual for the next month as I am going to grow a Decembeard...

I don't usually write about personal issues on this blog so this is an exception to the rule.

I will be joining other men caross the country by growing a beard to raise money for research into bowel cancer. 

I had my last shave for a month on Friday morning, so all ready for spending December nurturing my beard. I am hoping for a thick, curly black beard with hints of brown and ginger but doubt that is going to be the case.   It is more likely to be useful for my annual role as Father Christmas but may be painful when the kids tug the beard to see if it is real.

Having spent the last almost 2 years undergoing investigations for all sorts of diseases after a sudden loss of weight and anaemia I realised that bowel cancer was a major issue, with 1 in 14 men being diagnosed with it during their lifetime and 2,500 people under 50 being diagnosed with it in the UK every year. I was given the all clear (my problem is kidney disease) but as a result of my experience and learning about it, want to do my bit for research into bowel cancer. If you'd like to sponsor my beard and support bowel cancer research please go to my Just Giving page here:  LINK

Proposed 15 storey block for Cricklewood opposed by many local residents

The relationship of the block to surrounding buildings

As the block will appear from Cricklewood Lane

Proposals for a  6-15 storey block on the corner of Cricklewood Broadway and Cricklewood Lane  (1-13 Cricklewood Lane) is being opposed by many Barnet and Brent residents who live close to the proposed development.

These two statements extracted from comments on the Barnet Council planning portal sum up the reasons for opposition:

COMMENT 1

The proposal is based on misleading claims and specious arguments which are factually incorrect. A 15 storey high-rise extreme-density tower would dominate everything around it and be totally out of keeping with the rest of Cricklewood.

FUL-PLANNING_STATEMENT-4245340
2.12 The Site is within the wider Brent Cross Cricklewood (BXC) Framework.
It is not.
5.9 The Site is designated, by the LBB and the GLA: Cricklewood/Brent Cross Opportunity Area:
It is not.
6.28 .......the Brent Cross Regeneration Area is situated in close proximity to the Site, which provides precedent for tall buildings.
It is not "in close proximity to the Site"; There is no precedent for tall buildings
6.28 "Cricklewood is not identified by LBB as one of the areas suitable for tall buildings".

There is no Affordable Housing
7.2-Affordable housing provision will only be "discussed further with the Council".

The scheme will be detrimental to the area:
6.24 The tower "will be situated to the rear of the Site to minimise townscape views and amenity"
6.50 The scheme proposes a residential density that "exceeds the current London Plan density matrix"
6.61 "....the scheme proposal will result in several breaches of BRE daylight guidance", due to the design

Public Consultation
4.6. "an extensive process of consultation was undertaken ..... between the Applicant and the local community". This is an exaggerated and misleading claim.
4.8 reveals that only 43 people attended the exhibition, and that only 15 feedback forms were returned. Most local residents were not told

7.0 SECTION 106: the developer is making no contribution at all other than a Carbon offset payment - this is unacceptable.

If planning applications are to be decided on the basis of this kind of falsehood, that is a subversion and debasement of due democratic process, This proposal by an off-shore speculator to exploit residents' environment for commercial gain constitutes town cramming. It should be refused

COMMENT 2

Let's not pretend that anything about this development is intended to benefit the local area. It's about developers making money. The development is not in keeping with the local area, it's far too big. The development is not about providing housing to local people, there is no social housing, despite the desperate need. There is no guaranteed affordable housing.

I was born and brought up in Cricklewood and at the age of 33 I have had to move back in with my parents to be able to stay in the area that is my home. This housing is not even within my reach and in many ways I'm luckier than many other local people I am proud to call my neighbours.

Cricklewood infrastructure is already under enormous strain. I have given up trying to drive down the Broadway, the traffic barely moves. The new housing development towards staples corner, plus the planned distribution site are already going to add to an already overburdened road network. A development of that many flats would be awful, not to mention the health effects from the added pollution. The train networks are overloaded, it's nearly impossible to get on a train at Cricklewood Station as it is.

Why are we intent on letting outside financial interests come in and create so much damage to the place we live. Let's redevelop Cricklewood, some areas desperately need it but let's do it in a way that works for local people, before we realise we've ruined our home for a quick buck.

If you wish to comment on the proposal or read more about it follow this LINK

Bridge Park: 'We own it - we must take it back!'

An angry, passionate account of the history of Bridge Park by one of its founders Leonard Johnson. He rallies the Black community to get behind the campaign for Bridge Park and calls on them to ignore rumours that attempt to undermine his reputation.

New secondary school for Willesden

Chancel House

Gail Tolley, Director of Children and Young People's Service in Brent, confirmed yesterday that a new 6 forms of entry secondary school will be built on the site of Chancel House, Neasden Lane. It will be a free school with Wembley High Technology College, an academy, as its sponsor.

Originally it was intended to refurbish the redundant DWP building, Chancel House (above) to accommodate the school but the Education Funding Agency (EFA) decided demolition and new build was preferable.

A new secondary school south of the North Circular Road has long been a demand from  residents in Willesden, Harlesden and Church End following the closure of Sladebrook High School. Neasden High School,also closed, was just on the other side of the North Circular, on that section of Neasden Lane.  Parents made the case for a school which will be at the heart of the local community. Brent Council decided not to go ahead with a possible secondary school on the Bridge Park-Unisys site as part of the regeneration. The school has the project name of North Brent School LINK but this will obviously be revised.

Interestingly Gail Tolley said that the site had been considered by the EFA for the ill-fated (and expensive to the public) Gladstone Free School. LINK

Neasden Lane suffers from poor air quality some quite heavy truck truck movements. LINK

As the primary 'bulge' moves through into secondary schools more places will be needed and the local authority is working with  academies regarding expansion. As academies they are independent of the local authority and cannot be forced to expand.

There is of course some uncertainty over the future of Brent's European families regarding Brexit and this will need to be taken into account in school places planning.

The EFA has also approved a Free Special School to be set up by the Brent Special Academy Trust on a site in the Avenue and has again opted for demolition of the existing building and building of a new school.  At present many children are transported outside the borough due to the lack of special provision in Brent.

Responding to the plateau in reception primary school applications and vacancies in some school the Ark Somerville Primary, which will be built on the car park of York House, has been reduced to 2 forms of entry. LINK